Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3211 to 3215 (2nd to 6th May 2016)
sitnspin:
--- Quote from: APersonAmI on 03 May 2016, 12:46 ---No. No no no.
This woman threatened a customer with a gun for frowning at his drink. What should have happened is that she got reported to the police, got a fair trial, and was sent to prison, because that is not remotely okay or legal.
What should NOT have happened was that she was allowed to do so without consequence, and possibly still appear in this comic as if she wasn't a horrible villain, which is what will happen now.
NO! She should not be allowed to get away with that! This person should be in prison, not serving drinks!
Yeah, I hate this retcon, it does not remotely sit right with me. What she did is something people should not get away with. Not something that should be played off as a joke.
--- End quote ---
As opposed to Dora threatening someone with a sword for asking her bf out when that person didn't know he was her bf?
Violence and the threat of violence has been a mainstay of the humor in this comic from the beginning.
TheEvilDog:
Indeed, part of the early humour of the comic basically boiled down to one of the following topics:
- Obscure music reference.
- Obscene joke/prank from Pintsize
- Faye threatening or inflicting violence on someone, usually Marten.
We can't cherry pick what's right or wrong with any joke because we don't like the situation. If we do that, then we need to judge every other joke in the comic. Every time violence has come up in the comic, its backfires on the instigator, sometimes in quick horrific ways.
APersonAmI:
--- Quote from: sitnspin on 03 May 2016, 13:34 ---As opposed to Dora threatening someone with a sword for asking her bf out when that person didn't know he was her bf?
Violence and the threat of violence has been a mainstay of the humor in this comic from the beginning.
--- End quote ---
Yup. I was uncomfortable with it then, too. My objection, however, is the retcon, not the original joke. I do see how my post could be interpreted that way, however, I should have been clearer about what precisely bothered me.
--- Quote from: TheEvilDog on 03 May 2016, 13:54 ---Indeed, part of the early humour of the comic basically boiled down to one of the following topics:
- Obscure music reference.
- Obscene joke/prank from Pintsize
- Faye threatening or inflicting violence on someone, usually Marten.
We can't cherry pick what's right or wrong with any joke because we don't like the situation. If we do that, then we need to judge every other joke in the comic. Every time violence has come up in the comic, its backfires on the instigator, sometimes in quick horrific ways.
--- End quote ---
The joke made me merely uncomfortable. The retcon made me angry. I should have been clearer about that. In addition, the act of retconning something is not something I disagree with on general terms - if something doesn't work, fixing it can be a good thing to do. It was this particular retcon, and what it implied, that I am not comfortable with.
I do not agree that the violence backfires on the instigator every time. I feel that it is almost always treated much too lightly, and often draws no drawback at all. However, this is different, because here, it can’t backfire on the instigator, because it was made not to happen. She cannot be made to suffer for pulling a gun on Clinton, cannot be held guilty for implying that he was not allowed to leave after she had taken her gun out, because the author made it not happen.
Now, if she had indeed gone too far, the author could have made it backfire on her. This is a situation where no one involved has any reason not to report this to the police, or her bosses. She could have gotten fired, lost her right to own a gun, gotten a fine, or any other punishment. It could have been presented in any tone of the author’s choice, funny or serious, played for comedy or drama. Instead, the author made it not have happened, so none of these things could happen to her. Mr. Jacques choose to instead make it impossible to punish the violent person.
Making it impossible to punish violent people is the opposite of making it backfire in their face. It is to say that violence should be done, rather than say that one should be punished for doing it. Rather the opposite of how these actions should be treated, really. And also in a way very similar to how one defends the horrors of violence in reality - make it seem like the act was a different one, or in a different context, than it was. To make the act seem less serious, less unambiguous.
It was this act, this statement, which made me angry. Not at all the joke itself.
Penquin47:
--- Quote from: Dust on 03 May 2016, 12:27 ---
--- Quote from: jaquio on 03 May 2016, 10:32 ---Question:
Was the (now non-canon) appearance of the shotgun the first actual appearance of a gun in QC?
--- End quote ---
I'm pretty sure the Steve Spy Shenanigans showed one... yep..
--- End quote ---
Also this.
Neko_Ali:
A contrary take on the changing of the comic situation. I hesitate to call it a retcon because this is something that was drawn yesterday, then quickly changed. As opposed to something that happened some time ago. Jeph drew a scene with a specific intent in mind. The bartender is hostile and aggressive towards Clinton. Jeph has an idea where this story wants to go. However, sometimes the things we put out there seem quite a bit different than when we imagined them in our heads. So Jeph wrote, drew and posted the comic. Only after that did he realize that the tone was a good bit darker than what he was envisioning it. So instead of a serious threat with a shotgun, the comic was remade to a more ridiculous threat with the harpoon. Now Clinton's response is less 'Holy shit she pulled a gun on me for no reason!' to 'Who keeps a harpoon as a bar weapon?'. The bartender is no less hostile or in the wrong in her actions... But the threat seems more absurd than deadly serious.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version